Federal Court Rules... Obama's Inauguration CANCELS Any Standing the People Have in Voter-Fraud Eligibilty Case!!!

The judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled that
election fraud suspected in the 2008 presidential campaign essentially
was canceled by the inauguration of Barack Obama. ~ Bob Unruh (This is one of the most assinine rulings ever! Their boy couldn't even get his 'staged' public oath of office right! America wake up... 2012 is your last chance to get it right. Looking for more 'change and hope'? Vote for Obama... AGAIN! (sighing...) ~ SadInAmerica)

The ruling comes in a lawsuit that was filed on the same day Obama was
inaugurated in Washington by a team of taxpayers, voters, presidential
candidates, members of the military and others who alleged Obama failed
to meet the Constitution's requirements for the presidency.

The case represents the work of two groups of plaintiffs, one led by
lawyer Orly Taitz and the other by attorney Gary Kreep of the United
States Justice Foundation.

Taitz said her plaintiffs definitely will pursue further action,
probably a request for rehearing at two levels of federal court, while
Kreep told WND he was working with his clients on the results, and they
soon would make a decision regarding an appeal.

The issue was the "standing" of the groups bringing the complaint
against Obama. The district court essentially said nobody had standing
to bring a complaint, but the appellate judges said the individuals who
were politically connected to the race should hold an interest in a fair
outcome - including whether there was an ineligible candidate aboard
the ticket.

The individuals were Alan Keyes and Wiley S. Drake, candidates for the
White House on the American Independent Party ticket in California; Gail
Lightfoot, a member of the California Libertarian Party; who was a
write-in candidate; and Markham Robinson, a certified California elector
for the American Independent Party.

The judges' panel observed: "These plaintiffs argue that they have
standing because, as candidates running against Obama in the 2008
election, they had an interest in having a fair competition. … If Obama
entered the presidential race without meeting the requirements for the
office, they contend, the candidates did not have a fair opportunity to
obtain votes in their favor."

The opinion from judges Harry Pregerson, Ray Fisher and Marsha Berzon
explained the concept is called "competitive standing," and they
affirmed it as legitimate grounds for concern.

"This notion of 'competitive standing' has been recognized by several
circuits," the opinion said. "We, too, have upheld the notion of
'competitive standing.' In Owen v. Mulligan, we held that the 'potential
loss of an election' was an injury-in-fact sufficient to give a local
candidate and Republican party officials standing. In that case, the
candidate for local office sued the Postal Service for giving his rival a
preferential mailing rate, in violation of its own regulations."

The opinion said the case had the candidate and party officials seeking
"to prevent their opponent from gaining an unfair advantage."

However, in Obama's case, the court panel simply said once the inauguration was held, the claims evaporated.

"The original complaint was filed on Jan. 20, 2009, at 3:26 p.m. Pacific
Standard Time, after President Obama was officially sworn is as
president," the judges wrote. "Once the 2008 election was over and the
president sworn in, Keyes, Drake and Lightfoot were no longer
'candidates' for the 2008 general election. Moreover, they have not
alleged any interest in running against President Obama in the future.

"Therefore, none of the plaintiffs could claim that they would be
injured by the 'potential loss of an election,'" the court said.

Actually, Obama flubbed the Jan. 20 public oath, and retook it later, out of public view, according to the White House.

In a footnote, the judges confirmed that "some cases" have held that
competitive standing continues beyond a given election, but they don't
think so in this case.

The court also dismissed a quo warranto action - essentially a court
case demanding to know by what authority a given official is acting -
because they believe such an action can be filed only in the District of
Columbia, as well as FOIA claims requesting information.

The case also unsuccessfully alleged violations of the federal racketeering law, RICO.

"We've sent our recommendation to the plaintiffs," said Kreep. "I was
surprised [by the opinion] given the comments made by the justice Berzon
about this was an important constitutional issue that needed to be
resolved."

Taitz told WND that it is important to note that the court did not
confirm that Obama is eligibile; just that there were technical troubles
with all of the current case claims.

"They were careful not to state that Barack Obama is eligible for the
presidency," she said. "[The opinion] doesn't say he has a valid birth
certificate, valid Social Security number."

"All is says is nobody has standing," she said.

Her plan is to submit motions for rehearing at the 9th Circuit and other
courts, based on the newest ruling, which seems to contradict earlier
rulings she said she obtained in related cases. Her cases that were
dismissed because they were brought before the inauguration and
therefore lacked the requisite "ripeness" demanded by courts.

"It seems we are residing within a dictatorship, a totalitarian regime
where the courts and judges are simply used as puppets to come up with
some excuse to deny the complaints," she told WND.

WND previously reported the case claims Obama's qualifications were not
checked properly, and that has resulted in a violation of the U.S.
Constitution, a man occupying the Oval Office who does not meet the
requirements that only a "natural born Citizen" can hold the office.

Since his election, sometimes using private attorneys and sometimes
using taxpayer-funded legal teams, Obama has battled almost six-dozen
lawsuits across the country, including several that reached the U.S.
Supreme Court, to keep his records concealed from the public.

He even withheld the document he has since released when a career Army
doctor, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, was court-martialed and imprisoned for
asking for verification that the commander-in-chief was legitimate.

Kreep, on behalf of Wiley S. Drake, a vice-presidential candidate on the
2008 ballot in California; and Markham Robinson, an elector from the
state; had argued that there is precedent in the U.S. for removing an
unqualified chief executive.

That happened in North Dakota, Kreep argued, when Thomas H. Moodie was
removed from the office of governor in the 1930s. Moodie had failed to
meet a state residency requirement to be governor. But he was elected
anyway, installed and ultimately removed from office by the state
Supreme Court over that failure.

The plaintiffs also cite an earlier California case in which a candidate
for president was removed from the ballot by state officials because he
failed to qualify for the office under the U.S. Constitution's age
requirements.

The plaintiffs had argued that the Constitution was too important to ignore.

"A provision of the Constitution may not be disregarded by means of a
popular vote of the people," the plaintiffs' earlier brief said, "as
there are specific guidelines for amending the Constitution of the
United States. … Even if the people of the United States voted to elect
as president a candidate who did not qualify for the position, that vote
would not be sufficient to overcome the constitutional requirements for
office and make that candidate eligible.

"Here, the underlying issue is one arising under the Art. 2, Paragraph 1
of the United States Constitution, whether Obama meets the eligibility
requirements. … As established above, plaintiffs have standing to bring
this action as they have suffered a concrete injury in fact, caused by
Obama's ineligibility for the office of United States president, for
which the court has a remedy," the brief said.

The issue stems from the constitutional demand that the president -
unlike others in the federal government - must be a "natural born
citizen." WND has covered numerous challenges and lawsuits over Obama's
eligibility. Some have alleged that he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as
he has claimed or that the framers of the Constitution specifically
excluded dual citizens - Obama's father was a subject of the British
crown at Obama's birth - from being eligible for the office.

While Obama's "Certificate of Live Birth" was released by the White
House, other documentation for him remains sealed, including
kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College
records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law
School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the
University of Chicago, medical records, his files from his years as an
Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any
baptism records and his adoption records.

The justices on the Supreme Court repeatedly have refused to address the
constitutional questions involved. The justices apparently are
"avoiding" the Obama issue, according to one member of the court. Last
year, Justice Clarence Thomas appeared before a U.S. House subcommittee
when the issue arose. Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y.,
raised the question amid a discussion on racial diversity in the
judiciary.

"I'm still waiting for the [court decision] on whether or not a Puerto
Rican can run for president of the United States," said Serrano, who was
born in the island territory. "That's another issue."

Yet after Serrano questioned him on whether or not the land's highest
court would be well-served by a justice who had never been a judge,
Thomas not only answered in the affirmative but also hinted that Serrano
would be better off seeking a seat in the Supreme Court than a chair in
the Oval Office.

"I'm glad to hear that you don't think there has to be a judge on the
court," said Serrano, "because I'm not a judge; I've never been a
judge."

"And you don't have to be born in the United States," said Thomas,
referring to the Constitution, which requires the president to be a
natural-born citizen but has no such requirement for a Supreme Court
justice, "so you never have to answer that question."

"Oh really?" asked Serrano. "So you haven't answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one?"

"We're evading that one," answered Thomas, referring to questions of
presidential eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber. "We're
giving you another option."

One recent case to go to the high court was brought by attorney John Hemenway on behalf of retired Col. Greg Hollister.

When the justices refused to listen to the concerns, Laurence Elgin, an
expert working with the Constitutional Rule of Law Fund and website and
monitoring the case, said their "defiance of the court cases, their
attitude they don't really need to adhere to the law, is really
unparalleled."

"The public is going to grow increasingly concerned about Obama and the
failure of the courts to deal with these concerns," he told WND.

The same two attorneys also had another case that ran through the state
court system that raised similar issues and ultimately was rejected by
the U.S. Supreme Court, which simply posted a notice it would not hear
the case.

The image that Obama released as his birth documentation, which has been
challenged repeatedly by computer, imaging and document experts as a
fraud.

Fair Use Notice: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go HERE. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.